Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Jan 2012
Mixxer5 Offline OP
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
Joined: Jan 2012
I've been huge fan of original Divine Divinity, I've also liked Divinity 2 with expansion pack, as well as (to some extent) Dragon Commander. I couldn't really beat Beyond Divinity (too many closed areas- or rather- only closed areas). Above all these games though, I liked orginal DD most- for unparalleled freedom it offered. I'd like to hear some opinions from other who loved first game of series, because- I must admit- I'm rather disappointed with Original Sin. As "independent" RPG, not having anything in common with other games of series, it's pretty good- but as sequel (or prequel- depending on perspective) it well under my expectations. Here are my reasons:

- semi- open world:st art at Cyseal, proceed to Silverglen and so on. In Divine Divinity everything started at Aleroth, on a (huge) map being center of the "world". Verdistis, Dark Forest, Dwarf City- everything was accessible as soon as PC was strong enough to get there (or at least run and stay alive). Of course it's possible to come back to Cyseal after progressing to Silverglen, but there seems to be no reason... Also, progression seems too Diablo-like...

- "hey, what's in this cavern on the left?"- while there's plenty of side-quests in OS, they seem too simple. There are no carriage riders on the side of the road, arguing who's caused an accident, no cavern with vampire who abducted a child, no traders who want me to plunder ancient elvish tomb... What's more- quests are one-dimensional, finished after doing certain things. No additional plot twists or surprises (Rivertown plague), just kill and fetch. Sure, they are interesting, but still short... And it's impossible to solve quest with two wounded soldiers guys in a "good" way frown

- turn- based fight- of course it's just my opinion, but IMO- old good fashioned one would be better wink

- Immaculates, Conduit, surrounding world... What the hell?- my biggest problem- lack of immersion. I'm some kind of source hunter, dropped into some God(s) forsaken city, to do... what? I know that DD was kind of similar in that matter, with hero waking in Aleroth with amnesia, but... First- I don't know where I am, I don't know why source is evil (in DD it was healing only), what legion is... I mean- it's most recent game in series, acting without any kind of introduction. While DD was first game in series and thus it could be rough in plot terms, I hoped to see something familiar... (other than fountain in Cyseal square)

But maybe it's just me- nonetheless, I'd like to know others opinions wink

Joined: Aug 2013
Location: NC, USA
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Aug 2013
Location: NC, USA
Dang I played the original games, but they were so long ago I'm not sure making any comparison is fair at this point. I'm sure that the huge update in the game engine and graphics may play a part in what they can and can't include in the new game, or at least dictate how much time they can spend on it. I'm sure making side quests is a little more complex now than it was in 2002.

I can't even start on how much better the class design is. What did we have in DD? Three classes and male or female? Now it's basically build your own class and you can pick your skills and abilities any way you want. I mean there is just no comparison at all. DOS is 100 times better in that regard.

I agree more background would be nice ... well other than the books you have that tell you what a source hunter is ... and that opening clip when the game starts. But I don't think the background is that important in the game, especially when you can basically do anything you want, be it good or evil, and there is so much more to do in the game other than solve the murder. I've got so many side quests in my journal now that I think may OCD is going to kill me.

So far the game is giving me a very nice Baldur's Gate vibe, and I like it a lot.

Last edited by LeBurns; 07/07/14 06:29 PM.
Joined: Aug 2008
V
stranger
Offline
stranger
V
Joined: Aug 2008
I too liked DD a lot and have played it all the way through three times and part way through several more. DD is the reason I became a kickstarter backer of OS.

I agree with most of Mixxer5's points. I would have been very happy with an updated DD-like game, but that's not what we got. There are many things I like about OS such as its crafting and the flexibility of setting fire to oil slicks, etc. My main concern is with the fights. In DD, the PC often encountered minor enemies, such as a wild boar. These fight would be over in a few seconds with minor reward, typically a few experience points and maybe some meat. So far in OS almost all the fights are major affairs, often lasting 20 minutes or more. A few of these are fine and there is a joy in discovering how to win against seemingly overwhelming odds, however not all of them. More frequent minor fights would be very welcome.

Beyond the fights and issues Mixxer5 mentioned, such as linear versus open world, I need to play the game a good bit longer to really decide how OS stacks up with DD.


Joined: Dec 2010
J
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
J
Joined: Dec 2010
I'm thrilled to finally have a proper turn-based classic RPG from these guys. From what I understand, this is what they always wanted to make, but market forces at the time forced them to make a Diablo clone and 3rd person ARPG style games previously because it was the only way to get funding.

And I'll take hand-crafted, meaningful and difficult battles over trash mobs any day.

Can't say anything on the openness of the world yet, haven't gotten far enough.

They do explain Source / Source Hunters in the intro though.

Joined: Oct 2004
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2004
I really liked DKS; but I played it well after it was cleaned up. DD was ok; I definitely prefered DKS.
-
My issues with D:OS is not with the combat length but I think the game (story) is not as well fleshed out as either DD or DKS (or maybe it is but not presented as well). If I had to 'rank' the games it would be somethign like:

7+ for DD (won't go into detail here; and I know many would rank it higher)
9+ for DKS (wished it was twice as long and did not esp like the very end where you have aerial combat)
8.5 for D:OS (not finished yet my opinion might change; also I'm sure patches will improve it and add more content so 8.5 is sort of a bottom score at this point; the problem is that there are a few specific irritation points that really irritate me - such as very slow movement - walking across the city multiple times is a slow experience and portals not being labelled; as well as discovering because i lost a random RPS event two quests are now undoable (headless and entertainer - more upset that i can't find a way to do headless).

Joined: Dec 2010
J
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
J
Joined: Dec 2010
Personally, I thought DKS was the weakest (and I didn't play it until it was all finished off). It just seemed like a relatively generic ARPG. Once you got past the opening areas and were flying around, it just seemed like a every dungeon you went into to climb up and fight the boss was the same thing over and over again. It was like raiding the gates in Oblivion...they all felt like the same generic process with no real point other than to grind through it.

I enjoyed DD for quite a while, but must admit I never finished. I basically rage quit after I went into the castle early and lost my teleport while still having tons of stuff to do. I had been a fool and not made a unique save point for quit a few hours and once I found out I had to do without it until a point much later in the story, I was so pissed that I just stopped playing. Too much running around left to do and no interest in replaying 5+ hours from my previous save outside of quick save. Diablo-style click fests have never been all that enjoyable to me anyway, so it was always a battle for me to fight through the tedium of Diablo-clicking to get to the very excellent story and quests. No doubt, if it had been turn based it would be on my all time list.




Joined: Apr 2013
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Apr 2013
I know this is going to sound downright blasphemous to some, but I couldn't get into DD (and I haven't tried BD, yet, in the hopes that I'll be able to complete DD first). I barely even got out of the first town before setting it aside (and I've tried several times with different builds). D2 was accessible, but I still haven't got very far in it. On top of that, DC just didn't ring my bells like I thought it would. Still, having a blast with D:OS. Strange? Maybe. I'm a strange kind of guy.

Joined: Jul 2014
S
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
S
Joined: Jul 2014
I was not too fond of DD, liked D2 and love this game.

Joined: Jun 2013
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Jun 2013
I really enjoyed Divine Divinity, probably one of my favorite games (It should probably be noted I love ARPGs, but DD was something special to me since it was an ARPG that felt like it had a soul to it, rather then a click fest if that makes sense). Beyond Divinity I had a love-hate relationship with it just because of the control scheme of controlling the two characters. Divinity 2 I couldn't get into for a long time, but once I got through parts of it I thought it wasn't bad. But I do think Larian does better at isometric view games.

That said, while I've played my share of the turn based cRPGs in my time. As age went on I got used to the more action based and I started going back to the turn based with Xcom and Shadowrun: Returns to find that I never stopped loving the turned base. And combat wise I really find it (D:OS) is more fluid then you'd expect any turn based game to be (only thing I could maybe wish for was an undo button for my poor misclicks :P).

Overall, I think D:OS carries the name well enough. It feels like the same atmosphere and the overall mechanics still exist.

Edit: And oh yeah, when I first saw that wounded soldier quest. My first thought was "Okay, so where should I go find that second healing stone." :P

Last edited by Katreyn; 08/07/14 05:57 PM.
Joined: Jul 2014
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Jul 2014
original waz diablo clone...scorpion traps too OP....magic unbalanced....gaem woz brokd

imo DAO is betta in everywya.....but.....i still luv original

[Linked Image]


Spaghetti is life, Spaghetti is love.
Joined: Jul 2014
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Jul 2014
oops i mean DO:S i siad dragon age origins lamoo


Spaghetti is life, Spaghetti is love.
Joined: May 2004
member
Offline
member
Joined: May 2004
I played all 4 as they were released and D:OS is my favorite easily, the turn-based combat and 4-character party gives it a big edge over DD. DD would be #2, followed by BD and then D2.

Last edited by Fireblade; 08/07/14 05:58 PM.
Joined: Sep 2009
Location: Portugal
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2009
Location: Portugal
I played Divine Divinity at at stage of my life that i was much younger and had loads of free time and it's still my top #3 games of my life.

Unfortunately i'm quite sure that if I played it only now for the first time, i wasn't going to like it as much because of lack of time and patience for a lot of problems it had in balance, some boring repetitive combat, etc.

In that aspect, D:OS is MUCHHHHHHH more polished (as expected ofc), has way more "eye-candy", way more music variety, much better sounds, way more voice-acting, better text dialog and thus even tough i have way less patience the game just hooks you up more. I find myself sometimes after a hard work day playing for 30 minutes before bedtime just to have some quick fun and discover a little bit more.
DD would be less "thrilling" now that my life is way harder than before.

But one thing DD was better than D:OS wich was the Story. I believe that D:OS has a weak spot wich is the main story is kinda bland, fortunately the richness of sidequests and the interesting dialog more than make up for it.

In fact the parts of the main quest i was in the other dimension listening to the imps and "figures of time" are the least interesting for me, some of the time i was rolling my eyes saying "wha?? that doesnt make no sense at all", on the contrary many sidequests on the main world also didn't make much sense but were either goofy or interesting and fun to make up for it, the main ones were... "okish".

So... D:OS better in everything except main quest wich feels disconnected from the rest and bland. DD main quest was more "immersive" and connected much better to what everything you were doing in the world.

Last edited by KnightPT; 08/07/14 06:30 PM.
Joined: Aug 2010
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Aug 2010
I disagree Spaghetti man, Divine Divinity had similar combat to Diablo but it wasn't a Diablo clone.

DD had a deep story, dialogue options, choices in quests, an open world and interactivity with the environment. The only thing reminiscent of Diablo was the combat but everything else was unique.

I still think Divine Divinity is the best Divinity game yet. Original Sin feels very similar to it but it's not the same. The first game had an amazing atmosphere and the story (IMO) was greater. As the OP said too, in the first game, the whole world was open from the start and it felt more non-linear, the quests were greater (and more open) and there was just so much to see and do in the world.

Of course Original Sin will be more polished as it's newer but there's a charm about the original game that I haven't experienced in any other game since. I first played DD a few years back so it's still fresh in my memory too.

Still, Original Sin feels very closer to what the original game achieved and feels more like it than Divinity II did.

Last edited by Demonic; 08/07/14 10:19 PM.
Joined: Jan 2011
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Jan 2011
Originally Posted by Demonic
I disagree Spaghetti man, Divine Divinity had similar combat to Diablo but it wasn't a Diablo clone.

DD had a deep story, dialogue options, choices in quests, an open world and interactivity with the environment. The only thing reminiscent of Diablo was the combat but everything else was unique.


I agree. DD is like a real time RPG. ARPG's are more like adrenaline rushes, massive monsters, huge ass powers, like you are a mower and they are grass. They are fun, but they really are so lite on story, it's really misses out a chuck of RPG. And with the shear constant barrage and overpowering unlimited skills, tactics aren't much a part either. Just need to make sure your build can handle huge ass waves of mobs non-stop, that is pretty much the challenge.

DD doesn't play that that at all, it totally has it's own charm. Much more a RPG in a traditional sense in my mind. Almost like a genre that should have had many more entries in it, but never did.

Joined: Dec 2010
J
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
J
Joined: Dec 2010
Originally Posted by Horrorscope
I agree. DD is like a real time RPG. ARPG's are more like adrenaline rushes, massive monsters, huge ass powers, like you are a mower and they are grass. They are fun, but they really are so lite on story, it's really misses out a chuck of RPG. And with the shear constant barrage and overpowering unlimited skills, tactics aren't much a part either. Just need to make sure your build can handle huge ass waves of mobs non-stop, that is pretty much the challenge.

DD doesn't play that that at all, it totally has it's own charm. Much more a RPG in a traditional sense in my mind. Almost like a genre that should have had many more entries in it, but never did.


I agree that DD is better than your description of general ARPGs, but I disagree that this makes it "not an ARPG". It's still a Diablo clone, it's just far better than Diablo because it has a deep RPG story and well written/designed quests. The ARPG/Diablo mechanics are still what they are though. That made it painful to play for those of us that don't enjoy that kind of click-fest. I tried and likely would have finished it if not for my teleport-losing tantrum, but it was a chore to clickity-click-click my way through it so I could try to enjoy that great RPG hidden behind the Diablo mechanics.

If only it were turn based... :-(

Joined: Jul 2014
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Jul 2014
well wateva thats ur opinion im not gonna disagree man....but DD was unbalansed evryone knows....imo this gaem is superior

opinions opinions everyon has them lmoa


Spaghetti is life, Spaghetti is love.
Joined: Dec 2010
J
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
J
Joined: Dec 2010
Originally Posted by JohnnySpaghetti
well wateva thats ur opinion im not gonna disagree man....but DD was unbalansed evryone knows....imo this gaem is superior

opinions opinions everyon has them lmoa


Who cares about balance? It's not a competitive multiplayer game, so how does that diminish the quality of the game? If something is OP, use it if you want easy mode and ignore it if you don't. Doesn't really change the experience.



Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5